Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohus
06.07.2010
Facts
The applicant held a firearms licence which was revoked by the authorities on the ground that he was listed in the operational records file compiled by law-enforcement officers which contained information about his alleged risk to society. He was required to hand in his arms to the police in return for payment. He challenged the entry of his name in the operational records file in the domestic courts, which, however, dismissed his action on the basis of classified material submitted by the police, without disclosing it to the applicant.
Complaint
The applicant complained that the proceedings before the courts had been unfair in that the principle of equality of arms had not been respected. He invoked Article 6 (1) of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
To determine whether the applicant had been involved in a criminal activity, it had been necessary for the judges to examine a number of factors, including the reason for the police operational activities and the nature and extent of the applicant’s suspected participation in the alleged crime. Had the defence been able to persuade the judges that the police had acted without good reason, the applicant’s name would have been removed from the operational records file. The data in that file was, therefore, of decisive importance to the applicant’s case. More importantly, as the domestic courts’ decisions showed, the operational records file had been the only evidence of the applicant’s alleged danger to society. However, Lithuanian law and judicial practice provided that information containing state secrets could not be used as evidence in court against a person unless it had been declassified, and that it could not be the only evidence on which a court based its decision. As the applicant had not been apprised of the evidence against him or had the opportunity to respond to it (unlike the police who had effectively exercised such rights), the decision-making procedure had not complied with the requirements of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms and had not incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the applicant. Thus, the Court found a violation of Article 6.